34.3344, Review: Intertextuality 2.0: Gordon (2023)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-34-3344. Tue Nov 07 2023. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 34.3344, Review: Intertextuality 2.0: Gordon (2023)

Moderators: Malgorzata E. Cavar, Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Everett Green, Daniel Swanson, Maria Lucero Guillen Puon, Zackary Leech, Lynzie Coburn, Natasha Singh, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Maria Lucero Guillen Puon <luceroguillen at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: 08-Nov-2023
From: Jihye Kim [jihyekim1 at usf.edu]
Subject: Sociolinguistics: Gordon (2023)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.1597

AUTHOR: Cynthia Gordon
TITLE: Intertextuality 2.0
SUBTITLE: Metadiscourse and Meaning-Making in an Online Community
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2023

REVIEWER: Jihye Kim

SUMMARY
Intertextuality book review
Language is inherently intertextual. From the perspective of
dialogicality by Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986), language should be
interpreted within a situated context as the meaning is co-constructed
by the speaker and hearer. In this regard, a shared understanding of a
certain language (use) often leads to inclusion or exclusion from a
specific social group. In other words, intertextuality functions as
the construction of a social group. For example, the author, Cynthia
Gordon, took an example from her research on family discourse study
(Gordon, 2009) that parents use specific terms to describe their
children’s behavior repeatedly across conversations, and these terms
were used to construct the parents as a social group and to exclude
outsiders from the social group.
Language about language, communication about communication, or writing
about writing has been one of the most frequent conversation topics
worldwide. The accumulation of these discussions often becomes an
(in)formal social norm, which also varies across cultures and further
contributes to the construction of social groups’ identities and
ideologies. Along with the discussion of metadiscourse, the author,
Cynthia Gordon, compiled the concept of metadiscourse and
intertextuality into her research on an online discussion board. She
claims that the concepts of metadiscourse and intertextuality should
be considered together because both concepts play important roles in
establishing a society’s shared understanding of a social group’s
membership. These two concepts became more prominent in this “web 2.0”
era, in which “digital technologies afford multimodal representation
and re-use of previously existing texts in new contexts to an
unprecedented extent and number of sign makers” (Adami, 2014, p. 224)
and thus allow recontextualizing (e.g., Bauman and Briggs 1990).
With an emphasis on intertextuality and metadiscourse in digital
online discourse, the author examined how intertextuality is utilized
in a situated context, in which posters (online discussion board
users) participate and engage in online discussion, and how posters
exploit their metadiscursive knowledge to jointly construct and
negotiate community norms. To answer this, she examined a website
predominantly focusing on weight loss. With over 75 million users,
this website offers nutritional information and blogs with various
topics, including success stories, fitness tips, recipes, and research
related to weight loss and fitness. Among various pages with different
functions within the website, the author focused on a discussion board
of the website, through which users’ diverse interactional strategies
can be observed and examined.
This book is thematically divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1
provides a detailed introduction revisiting previous studies that
examined intertextuality and metadiscourse in various ways. The author
shows how intertextuality and metadiscourse are connected, especially
in online discourse. This well-written argument further leads to the
motivation for research. In the section ‘Methods and ethical
considerations,’ the author shows great detail in deciding
methodological and ethical choices. For example, she compared two ways
of examining online discussion forums: participant observation and
observation. Her justification of why she chose observation in this
study might be helpful for readers who have to go through the same or
similar decision process in analyzing digital discourse. The display
of her ethical considerations and the following decision process will
especially benefit emerging scholars interested in digital discourse
analysis as ‘the issue of how online data are used for research
purposes is a complex (and interesting) one’ (p. 45).
Chapters 2,3 and 4 examine posters’ intertextual and metadiscursive
language use in discussing several topics. Each chapter focuses on
specific terms that were used in this weight-loss centered online
discussion board. Chapter 2 explores users’ negotiation toward
defining ‘clean’ eating. For this examination, one thread (consisting
of one original post with several replying posts) with 81 posters
discussing ‘clean’ eating was chosen. From a close examination, the
author claims that the users utilize intertextual strategies and
resources, including not only linguistic features but also semiotic
resources and the discussion board’s function. For the linguistic
features, the author reveals that the users frequently used quotation
marks, repetition of words or phrases from other posts, and deictic
pronouns to achieve appropriate engagement as a member of the
discussion board. The author also emphasizes that the users employed
the affordances of the discussion forum, such as the boards’ quotation
function, to successfully negotiate the meaning of ‘clean’ eating and
to appropriately contribute to this discussion with regard to the
community’s guidelines at the same time.
While Chapter 2 exclusively focused on one thread, Chapter 3 explored
the word ‘fixing’ across several threads. In this situated context of
the discussion forum, ‘fixing’ means adjustment of another person’s
prior post. Although ‘fixing’ is widely used as an Internet trope, the
author finds that this word has specific functions in this discussion
board. Firstly, the word ‘fixing’ is usually used sincerely and as
assistance for another poster. Secondly, on the other hand, the word
is also used as sarcasm and a way of expressing disagreement. And
lastly, ‘fixing’ is used to construct humour. Through the wide use of
the word ‘fixing’ across the threads, the author emphasizes the word’s
intertextual function, linking posts to prior posts. Chapter 4
particularly examines the discussion board moderators’ participation
and how they accomplish the face-threatening metadiscursive action of
announcing the termination of a thread, which violated the community’s
guidelines. In the sense that the author explored the discourse of
moderators, Chapter 4 can satisfy readers who are interested in an
under-researched area of online discourse analysis. The author
observed the pattern that moderators often use the word ‘locking’ to
showcase their action of terminating one discussion thread. At the
same time, the moderators showed utilization of various intertextual,
metadiscursive strategies when they framed their face-threatening
actions as humorous and friendly. They thus achieved building group
solidarity. Using semiotic resources was one of the moderators’
strategies; this created humor and thus lessened the degree of
face-threatening acts.
The author expands the impact of online discourse interaction into
offline. Chapters 5 and 6 explore online discourse about offline
communication and relationships. It was shown that the users of this
discussion forum showed a sense of jointly solving the problem, which
concerned an offline interaction reported by the user. In this
collaborative action, the other users’ offline experiences were also
brought out. In Chapter 5, the original poster of a thread presented
the problem by describing her offline interaction with a doctor. In
response to this problem-solving question, other posters use
information-seeking questions, paraphrasing and reframing, telling
matching stories, constructing dialogue, using the discussion board’s
quotation function, pointing to something posted before, and giving
advice to achieve problem-solving activity. While Chapter 6’s original
post shows a somewhat similar problem-solving question in her offline
relationship, the author claims that cultural discourse and ideologies
are embedded in this thread, as the original poster presented her
partner’s hatred toward her using this website, which can reflect
various opinions and ideologies. By adopting cultural discourse
(Carbaugh, 2007) and Master Narrative (Tennen, 2008), the author
highlights the interconnectedness between interpersonal communication,
partner relationships, and a particular digital communication
technology in the discussion. Through Chapters 5 and 6, overall, the
author claims the interconnected nature of online and offline
activities.
The book ends with Chapter 7 by providing summarized findings of the
research and emphasizing interconnection between intertextuality and
metadiscourse in online discourse. This book shows the interplay
between intertextuality and metadiscourse in an online discourse
forum. The author navigates the intersection between the  two notions
with various real-world examples. Different situated contexts and
actually used terms in the specific online discussion forum will
satisfy readers who are interested in online discourse analysis. In
addition to having various examples, the author also offers a rigorous
analytic framework and methodological choice. Thus, both established
and emerging scholars will find the details and examples in this book
beneficial. Thus, this book is recommended to researchers who are
interested in either digital discourse analysis or the notion of
intertextuality and metadiscourse. Although the very specific genre
and its terms may suggest that the book is aimed primarily at scholars
who are used to digital discourse analysis, any scholar interested in
digital discourse will find it interesting and enlightening.

References
Adami, Elisabetta. 2014. “Retwitting, Reposting, Repinning; Reshaping
Identities Online: Toward a Social Semiotic Multimodal Analysis of
Digital Remediation.” LEA - Lingue e letterature d’Oriente e
d’Occidente 3: 223-243.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays,
translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, edited by Michael
Holquis. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, translated
and edited by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech
Genres and Other Late Essays, translated by Vern W. McGee, edited by
Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 60-102. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs. 1990. “Poetics and
Performances as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 19, no.1: 59-88.
Carbaugh, Donal. 2007. “Cultural Discourse Analysis: Communication
Practices and Intercultural Encounters.” Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research 36, no. 3: 167-182.
Gordon, Cynthia. 2009. Making Meanings, Creating Family:
Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 2008. “We’ve Never Been Close, We’re Very Different’:
Three Narrative Types in Sister Discourse.” Narrative Inquiry 18, no.
2:206-229.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Jihye Kim (jihyekim1 at usf.edu) ∙ Department of World Languages,
University of South Florida) She received her MA in English
Linguistics from Hannam University in South Korea. Her research
interests include social issues that can be examined through
linguistic research, especially through (online) discourse analysis.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

American Dialect Society/Duke University Press http://dukeupress.edu

Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group) http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge Scholars Publishing http://www.cambridgescholars.com/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Dictionary Society of North America http://dictionarysociety.com/

Edinburgh University Press www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

Georgetown University Press http://www.press.georgetown.edu

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Linguistic Association of Finland http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

Springer Nature http://www.springer.com

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-34-3344
----------------------------------------------------------